Feasibility Study Report

Elizabeth Township Feasibility Study Page ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The contributions of the following groups and individuals were vital to the successful
development of Elizabeth Township’s Recreation Complex Feasibility Study. They are
commended for their interest in the project and the input they provided.
Township Supervisors/Staff Key-Person Interviews
Mrs. Joanne Beckowitz Emily Albeck

Mr. Robert Keefer Emil Burek
Kathy Dainty
Dave Firda
Walter Gibbons
Dennis Kampas
Feasibility Study Steering Committee Steve Meir
Kara Miles
Mr. Timothy Guffey Harry Morrison
Ms. Judy Marshall Eric Pakala
Mr. Drew Mueller Carl Rogers
Mr. John Paylo Keith Shaffer
Mr. Dennis Pohoclich Terrie Stefanko
Mrs. Robin Poirer Mark Verosky
In addition, we would like to thank:
Mr. Andrew Baechle, Director

Allegheny County Parks Department
Mr. Mike Piaskowski, Grants Project Management Division

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural Resources
Ms. Kathy Frankel, Recreation and Parks Supervisor

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural Resources
This project was financed in part by a grant from the Keystone Recreation, Park, and
Conservation Fund, under the administration of the Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation.
JTC-jrs:\A04355\Jan-07 PBS&J
Elizabeth Township Feasibility Study Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1
II. PROJECT GOALS............................................................................................................2
Feasibility for a Recreation Complex.............................................................................. 2
III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .............................................................................................3
Steering Committee .......................................................................................................... 3
Public Surveys and Public Involvement ......................................................................... 3
IV. SITE ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................15
Alternative Site Evaluation Results............................................................................... 16
Alternative Analysis........................................................................................................ 19
V. LEGAL FEASIBILITY...................................................................................................20
VI. USAGE FEASIBILITY ...................................................................................................21
Population Analysis ........................................................................................................ 21
Developing a User Profile............................................................................................... 26
National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Standards ................................. 26
Determining Park Facility Needs and Program Demand Analysis............................ 29
Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines .................................. 29
Site Topography and Roadway Impact Analysis......................................................... 32
VII. VISION FOR THE FUTURE .........................................................................................33
VIII. FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERATIONS ................................40
Proposed Annual Park Operation and Maintenance Budget ..................................... 40
Elizabeth Township Feasibility Study Page iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Elizabeth Township Survey Return Results
Table 2 – Percent of Respondents’ Disposition for Types of Recreation Funding
Table 3 – Site Location Analysis
Table 4 – Inventory of Recreation Facilities within Elizabeth Township
Table 5 – Elizabeth Township Population Statistics
Table 6 – Elizabeth Township General Demographics (2000)
Table 7 – Percentages of Ethnic Groups within Elizabeth Township
Table 8 – Elizabeth Township General Demographics (2000)
Table 9 – School Enrollment in Elizabeth Township (2000)
Table 10 – Educational Attainment in Elizabeth Township (2000)
Table 11 – Household and Family Income in Elizabeth Township (1999)
Table 12 – Family and Household Income (2000)
Table 13 – Marital Status/Grandparent Care in Elizabeth Township (2000)
Table 14 – Recreation Facilities: Existing versus Need
Table 15 – Fiore Property III Quantity Takeoff
Table 16A – Fiore Property III Preliminary Cost Estimate
Table 16B – Fiore Property: Roadway and Parking Access Cost Estimate
Table 17 – Church Property III Quantity Takeoff
Table 18 – Church Property III Preliminary Cost Estimate
Table 19 – Church Property/Fiore Property: Total Costs
Table 20 – Estimated Ten Year Budget for Park O&M and Revenues
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Age Distribution of Survey Households
Figure 2 – Locations of Survey Respondents
Figure 3 – Preferred Recreation Facilities
Figure 4 – Adult’s Favorite Activities (Top 10)
Figure 5 – Youth’s Favorite Activities (Top 10)
Figure 6 – Additional Space Needed in Twp. for Recreation/Nature/Sports Fields
Figure 7 – Preferred Type of Recreational Facility
Figure 8 – Park Usage – Group Size
Figure 9 – Frequency of Use
Figure 10 – Preferred Trail Use
Figure 11 – Preferred Trail Amenities
Figure 12 – Areas of Concern
Figure 13 – Method for Funding Recreation Center
Figure 14 – Recreation Facility Comparison in Elizabeth Twp. to National Standards
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Park Survey
Appendix B – Plan Sheets for Alternatives
Appendix C – Location Map of Recreation Facilities
Appendix D – Fiore/Church Property Alternatives
Elizabeth Township Feasibility Study Page 1
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The need to undertake a feasibility study to develop an indoor/outdoor recreation facility in
Elizabeth Township, Pennsylvania, was identified in the 2005 draft of the Allegheny County
Comprehensive Plan. Elizabeth Township, via the aid of a Keystone Recreation, Park and
Conservation Fund Grant, hired PBS&J to perform a feasibility study within the Township. The
study was initially scoped to take place in Round Hill Park, but was expanded to the entire
Township due to public concerns.
The feasibility study was conducted from March 2006 to January 2007. It included the
formation of a steering committee, field views, public surveys, public meetings, engineering
practices and proposed recreation facility designs, and the generation of a feasibility study report.
The feasibility study report summarizes the project goals, public survey results, site analyses,
legal feasibility of indicated sites, and the usage feasibility of a newly constructed recreation
facility within the community in comparison to demographic needs and the number and type of
current recreational facilities available to Township residents. The report also includes a vision
for the future of the recreation complex in the Township, as well as financial considerations that
Township officials must take into account, when considering implementing the complex. A
proposed project cost and ten (10) year operation and maintenance budget were developed.
The goal of the feasibility study was to determine the need, legal feasibility, and economic
feasibility of developing a recreation center. The study uncovered that residents were interested
in generating more space within the Township for recreation needs. Most residents preferred
that these spaces remain natural and undeveloped. There was documented support for an
organized sports tournament complex. A majority of residents agreed that a mixed-recreation
complex with multiple recreational amenities was desired. The need was emphasized on a
centralized location for residents to access within the Township. Township residents also
expressed concern in regards to additional taxes.
The feasibility study included multiple alternative locations and scenarios for a recreation
complex. After considerable research and cost/benefit analysis, it was determined that the Fiore
Property and the Church Property were the most feasible options to house a recreation complex.
The project costs were approximately $2.3 million and could be financially feasible for the
Township over a ten-year period, if the Township decides to go forward with the project.
Additional grants and sources of funding should be sought to alleviate the potential development
costs of the recreational complex on the Township.
II. PROJECT GOALS

Feasibility for a Recreation Complex
The Allegheny County Comprehensive Plan identified a need to study the feasibility to develop
an indoor/outdoor recreational facility in Elizabeth Township. The initial goal of the project was
to identify an area in Round Hill Park. Round Hill Park is a park and demonstration farm owned
and operated by the Allegheny County Department of Parks and Recreation. However, areas
outside of Round Hill Park were also analyzed. The capacity and feasibility of a recreation
facility was examined at eight (8) different locations to determine an optimal site. A “No-Build”
alternative was also included within the project study.
The purpose of this study was to determine the need and feasibility to develop a recreation
complex in Elizabeth Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The capacity of the
Township was studied via community support, market characteristics, physical/structural
requirements, and the Township’s financial capability to acquire, develop, and sustain an
indoor/outdoor recreational facility.
The goal was to determine the need, legal feasibility, and economic feasibility of developing a
recreation center. To determine the feasibility, a planning level intensity estimate was developed
for each site.
III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The public involvement campaign involved a three (3) tier approach: public surveys, public
meetings, and the key-person interviews. In addition to a project steering committee, public
surveys were sent to each Township household. The public involvement process also included
three (3) public meetings and key-person interviews.
Steering Committee
The steering committee met monthly to discuss issues as they arose and directed the progress of
the project. Meeting minutes were recorded by PBS&J and provided for the steering committee
members each month. Ten (10) regular steering committee meetings were conducted from
March 2006 through December 2006.
Public Surveys and Public Involvement

Three (3) public meetings were conducted throughout the duration of the study. The first was a
“kick-off” meeting to introduce the purpose and need for the project to the community. The
second public meeting presented the survey results. The third and final public meeting was
conducted to receive public input on the several alternative sites identified as potential recreation
complex sites.
This photo was taken during a public meeting held on July 25, 2006 at the Elizabeth
Township municipal building. Joel Shodi, P.E. (PBS&J) served as a technical expert on
the project and answered questions about the feasibility study for concerned citizens.
In the spring of 2006, 4,763 Public Opinion Surveys were mailed to each Elizabeth Township
residence; these surveys were compiled from a database of addresses for the entire community of
Elizabeth Township. The survey was also publicized and posted on the Elizabeth Township
webpage. The survey asked several questions related to the existing community recreation
facilities; other questions were designed to provide input pertinent to the preparation of the
Feasibility Study of a Recreation Complex in Elizabeth Township. The results of the survey
were made available at public meetings and were also posted online along with public meeting
announcements and other project milestones.
Responses were sent to the Township municipal building on Rock Run Road. The total
number of surveys returned was 1,576 (or 35 percent). This very good return rate
demonstrates genuine community-wide interest in the future parks and recreation efforts
in the Township.
Table 1 – Elizabeth Township Survey Return Results

SURVEY RETURNS
TOTAL SURVEYS SENT VIA REGULAR MAIL 4763
TOTAL RETURNED AS UNDELIVERABLE 266
TOTAL SURVEYS RETURNED THROUGH WEBSITE 110
TOTAL SURVEYS RETURNED VIA REGULAR MAIL 1466
GRAND TOTAL RECEIVED 1576

SURVEYS SENT AND DELIVERED 4497
% RESPONSE OF ELIZABETH TOWNSHIP 35.0%
Survey Results: Demographics

The first questions of the survey were geared toward determining household demographics.
Elizabeth Township residents were questioned about the street locations of their residences, in
addition to the size and age distribution of their households. (A copy of the survey is provided in
Appendix A.)
The age distribution of the survey responses is quite similar to the demographic profile of the
Township presented in Table 2 – Elizabeth Township General Demographics (2000). The youth
population (19 and under) comprised 25 percent of the surveys and about 23 percent of the
population in the 2000 census. The middle age groups (20-59 years) made up about 50 percent
of the surveys and 51.6 percent of the 2000 population. Seniors (60 years and older) totaled
approximately 25 percent of both the 2000 population and the recent survey responses. These
statistics reveal both a very good survey return and a representative sample of the
Township residents.
Figure 1 – Age Distribution of Survey Households

4%
8%
4 years and under
25%
6% 5-10 years old
11-14 years old
7% 15-19 years old
20-39 years old
40-59 years old
60 and older
18%
32%
Township residents were asked to identify their street of residence to determine any trends in the
survey participation of households. The twelve (12) most frequently selected street locations are
illustrated in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2 – Locations of Survey Respondents
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
SCENERY DR LINCOLN KAREN DR DUNCAN OBERDICK GREENOCK BROADLAWN HIGHLAND HIGH ST SIMPSON OLD HILLS RD RIDGE RD
HALL RD STATION RD DR BUENA VISTA DR DR HOWELL RD
ST
According to the Township map, the most commonly indicated streets in the survey are
relatively evenly distributed throughout the Township. Scenery Drive had the largest number of
responses due to its proximity to the proposed improvements to Round Hill Park near SR 0048
and length of the roadway and single-family residences along the route.
Survey Results: Recreation Interests

Based on the survey results, charts and tables were developed to graphically represent the
responses to the community recreation interest survey. Elizabeth Township residents were
provided with the opportunity to indicate the types of recreation they enjoy and what they
foresee as the future needs of recreation facilities within the Township.
Figure 3 – Preferred Recreation Facilities

700
600
500
400
Votes
300
200
100
0
il
y
r
e
r
ns
k
rd
r
an
ds
ng
nd
ea
g
l
ns
ds
g
g
ra
al
te
rs
rt
ke
te
lte
in
al
in
in
tio
el
r
oa
lio
el
ri
yb
en
ou
ou
ea
ou
iT
W
m
at
oc
A
cl
sh
Fi
Fi
st
Sh
eb
ta
vi
ith
C
cy
le
im
Sk
gr
C
H
Fi
ic
Sk
ue
e
er
sS
Pa
ll
ol
at
ur
cn
Bi
ay
is
e
ph
Sw
ic
et
Ba
Eq
e
ng
io
cc
ry
nn
Sk
at
Ic
cn
es
Pi
re
Pl
m
at
So
nt
lle
N
tn
Te
Pi
St
A
re
ou
ha
Fi
ll/
ec
-C
ba
C
R
/X
B-
ng
ki
al
W
The five (5) recreation facilities most preferred by Elizabeth Township residents are: a
swimming pool, nature walks, a walking/cross country ski trail, fitness stations, and a recreation
center. The most preferred facilities focus on activities that are undertaken via community
recreation, with large groups of people being able to enjoy the activities together. Certain areas
of organized sports were indicated, as well, but to a lesser degree. Residents agreed these
facilities would be the most useful in a recreation center complex.
Figure 4 – Adult’s Favorite Activities (Top 10) To determine the most

popular forms of recreation
within the community,
650 both adults and children
600 were asked to indicate their
550 favorite recreational
500 activities. The responses
Adult's Favorite Activities (Top 10)
450 differed greatly between
400 the two demographic
Responses
350
groups.
300
250
Adults seemed to favor
200
activities that can be
150
performed individually, or
100
within small groups. Adult
50
responses were also geared
0
Walk Bike Fish Golf Swim Exercise Gardening Camp/Be Outdoor Hunt Walk/Bike
more toward fitness and
Outdoors Shows theYRT
leisure, rather than team
sport interaction. Walking
is, by far, the most favored
activity within the adult
community. Biking
Figure 5 – Youth’s Favorite Activities (Top 10) fishing, golfing, and
swimming are also very
60
popular activities amongst
Youth's Favorite Activities (Top 10) the adult population.
50
Organized sports are much

more popular among the
40 community youth than
Responses
adults. Swimming,
baseball and/or softball,
30
and basketball were the
three (3) activities most
20
frequently selected by the
Elizabeth Township youth.
10 The types of activities

Swim Baseball/Softb B-ball Soccer Bike Playground Fish Exercise Skate(board) Football
all/T-Ball enjoyed by community
members, especially adults
reflect the most preferred
facilities in Figure 3.
Survey recipients were questioned about their disposition for the allotment of additional space in
the Township to be utilized for park and recreation, sports fields, or natural areas with minimal
development. Responses favored more areas for park and recreation and natural areas.
However, no broad consensus was reached on constructing more sports fields in Elizabeth
Township.
Figure 6 – Natural Areas/Sports Fields/Park & Recreation Space: Additional Space

Needed in Township
100% 8%
11%
20%
90% 8%
16%
80%
70% 27%
37%
60%
43% Strongly Disagree
Disagree
50% Agree
Strongly Agree
31%
40%
30%
44%
20% 33%
22%
10%
0%
Natural Areas Sports Fields Park & Rec Space
Many Elizabeth Township residents place high importance for the allotment of space for
recreational areas within the community. The Township is relatively divided on whether new
sports fields are needed; 53 percent of respondents agreed, while 47 percent disagreed.
Organized sports did not spark as much of an interest in the adult population in comparison to
the youth population in Elizabeth Township. Though there is relatively split agreement on
whether additional space is required in the Township for sports fields, many residents agree that
more space for park and recreation (81 percent agree), as well as areas of minimal development
(76 percent agree), are needed within the community.
Elizabeth Township residents were also questioned about what type of recreation complex that
they would most prefer in the community. Respondents could choose between a mixed-use
complex, athletic fields only, nature areas only, or an indoor/outdoor court that could be used for
tennis and basketball.
Figure 7 – Preferred Type of Recreational Facility
9%
20%
3%
68%
Mixed Use Complex Area Athletic Fields Only Nature Areas Only Indoor/Outdoor Court (tennis, basketball)
The majority of respondents (68 percent) prefer that a mixed-use complex be implemented into
the Township. The mixed-use complex could consist of trails, athletic fields, a recreation
building, a new toddler playground, nature walks, and other amenities to be addressed by the
Township. Some residents (20 percent) prefer that nature areas should be emphasized in the
Township, most likely for the use of passive recreation. A small number of residents indicated
that they wish to have athletic fields only or an indoor/outdoor court be built for the community.
Figure 8 – Park Usage-Group Size

20%
80%
Small (6 or Less) Large (Greater than 6)
Group sizes, type of recreation preferences, and frequency of recreation use are good indicators
of both the extent and the types of recreation interest within a community. Elizabeth Township
residents indicated how often they utilized the community parks and if their visits tended to be in
large or small groups. Most residents stated that they visit the parks in small groups.
Figure 9 – Frequency of Use

The planned frequency of use was
2% 6% quite varied. One third of the
22% respondents stated that they would
21%
use the proposed recreation
facility one to two times per
week. Few plan to use it
everyday, and only a small
fraction intend to use the facility
18% for sports teams only.
31%
Small groups of people utilizing
the proposed recreation facility
Every Day 3-5 Times per Week
1-2 Times per Week Once per Week (Summer)
once or twice a week should be
Infrequently Only for Team Sports expected in the Township.
However, many respondents
commented that group size and
frequency of use were highly
dependent upon what types of
amenities would be offered at
the facility.
Figure 10 – Preferred Trail Use

Trails, such as nature walks and
1200
walking and cross country ski
trails, were indicated as highly
1000 preferred facilities within the
800 Township (see Figure 3). The
# of Votes
next two figures (Figure 10 and

600
Figure 11) illustrate the types of
400 preferred trail activities and
amenities that Elizabeth
200
Township residents wish to see
0 develop on the future trails of the
Motorized Bicycles Animals
area.
Yes No
Figure 11 – Preferred Trail Amenities
900
800 Yes
700
600
# of Votes
500
400
300
200
100
0
Mile Markers Exercise Stations Equestrian
The majority of the respondents (90 percent) did not favor motorized vehicle use on trails. There
was much more support for bicycles and animals. A physical fitness trail with exercise stations
and distance markers was also favored.
Survey respondents were also asked to add their comments or concerns to the survey. The top
ten (10) concerns or comments covered the following subject areas are shown on Figure 12.
Figure 12 – Areas of Concern
180 No New
Taxes; 188
160
140
120
Votes
100
Maintain Existing
Facilities/Already Have
80 the Facility; 68
Safety/Security/
Vandalism; 61
60 No New Township
Building; 42
Pool Needed; 31
40
20 No Improvements/ Any Improvement Need Activities Preserve Nature/ Concern about

Use Funds for Children; 45 Maintain Country Site Location; 31
Welcome; 65
Elsewhere; 69 Setting; 39
“No new taxes” is the primary concern of the Elizabeth Township residents. This is a typical
response in most recreation surveys, and is a legitimate one. Most families are concerned with
an increase in taxes. The purpose of this study is to determine which site alternative (including
the “No-build” alternative) will be the most feasible and practical for Elizabeth Township
residents. Funding is obviously a consideration. Several additional financial options will need to
be examined by the Township, such as grants, bonds, and donations. These types of funding
sources can relieve the tax burden placed on residents due to recreational activities.
The second concern came from those who were not in agreement with the necessity of park
improvements. They stated no park improvements should occur and funds should be used
elsewhere. These concerns were often addressed by the older age group respondents. This is
understandable if they feel that they would not use the park. It is also understandable if they are
on a fixed income. They want their tax dollars paying for services other than recreation.
Planned facilities will be ADA compatible. A Township-owned building that houses activities
for senior citizens may be attractive to this growing age group.
A review of the demographics displays an increasing number of residents in the 60 and over age
cohort. This trend is typical of communities and points to the need to have programs for seniors.
Having picnics, horseshoes, and other games or activities at the park at no cost could change the
attitude of these respondents that is contrary to the majority of Township residents. A trail at
grade level that is easy to walk and is visible to the public can attract the 60 and over age group.
Seniors participating in a gardening club can help plant and beautify the park. Giving them a
reason to come to the park and participate in activities may change their attitude about recreation.
Maintaining existing facilities was the third concern. The “No-build” alternative examines the
modification of existing facilities to meet recreation needs for all age groups.
“Any improvements to the park are welcome!” was the comment that ranked fourth in the
survey.
The fifth concern was issues regarding safety, security, and vandalism. To mitigate for instances
of vandalism, a “vandal resistant” design is evaluated at each site. Site access for emergency
vehicles and site visibility were considered in the designs.
A need for children’s activities was the sixth concern. Current recreation facilities and programs
for all age groups is examined. Consideration is also placed on community growth and
demographics. This process identifies current and future needs for all age groups.
“No new Township building” was the seventh concern. No new administrative Township
building is being considered. A building to house recreation programs, concessions, and
maintenance equipment is part of the alternatives analysis.
The eighth concern was geared toward the preservation of nature and maintaining the country
atmosphere of the Township. The need for natural areas to meet passive recreation needs
become an integral part of the alternatives analysis.
The comment that a pool is needed in the Township ranked as the ninth concern. Existing
facilities are identified and examined in the area. Elizabeth Township is compared to the
National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) for municipalities of similar size and
demographics.
The preliminary site location in Round Hill Park adjacent to Scenery Drive was indicated as the
tenth concern. As a result of the public survey and public meetings held, eight (8) site
alternatives are being studied.
Survey Results: Funding Options

Township residents were asked to indicate the preferable types of funding that would be accessed
for the construction, administration, programming and maintenance for the addition of any
recreational facilities that would be implemented into the area. Funding was organized into the
following categories: taxes, fees, grants, donations, endowments/corporate donations, and
municipal bonds. Table 2 and Figure 13 serve as illustrations to the response from residents on
their level of agreement with these various sources of funding.
Table 2 – Percentage of Respondents’ Disposition for Recreation Funding Types

Subtotal Subtotal
Strongly Strongly
Method of Funding Agree (Agree & Disagree (Disagree &
Agree Disagree
Strongly Agree) Strongly Disagree
Taxes 2.3% 10.0% 12.3% 22.7% 65.0% 87.7%
Fees 20.7% 36.4% 56.4% 21.2% 21.8% 43.0%
Grants 68.3% 24.7% 93.0% 1.5% 5.5% 7.0%
Donations 62.3% 32.7% 95.0% 1.4% 3.7% 5.1%
Endowments/ Donations 61.7% 32.3% 94.0% 1.8% 4.2% 6.0%
Municipal Bonds 29.3% 33.1% 62.4% 14.6% 23.0% 37.6%
Figure 13 – Method for Funding Recreation Center
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0% Strongly Disagree

Responses
Disagree
50.0%
Agree
40.0% Strongly Agree
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Taxes Fees & Grants Donations Endowments/ Municipal
Memberships Donations Bonds (Capital
Improvements)
Funding Type
Methods for funding the facility were geared toward grants, donations, and endowments, with
over 90 percent of respondents being in favor of utilizing these funding resources. Municipal
bonds, fees and memberships were favored by over half of the respondents. Taxes were the least
favored with almost 90 percent of respondents being in disagreement with their use (65 percent
strongly disagreed). Even though the majority of respondents favored municipal bonds, 25
percent strongly disagreed with their use.
IV. SITE ANALYSIS

Round Hill Park was originally identified in the Allegheny County Comprehensive Plan (2002)
as being the best potential location for a recreation complex that would fulfill the recreation
needs of Elizabeth Township. The original scope of work involved identifying a site within
Round Hill Park at selected locations previously identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
However, as a result of the community involvement, several other potential sites were indicated
for further study. The following eight (8) sites were identified, in addition to a “no-build”
alternative, in the public survey and in verbal and written reply during the public project kick-off
meeting.
• Howell Property, located off Lincoln Road which is approximately ninety (90) acres.
This property is presently owned by Elizabeth Township and is designated as park,
recreation and open space property. The Softball Association was looking at a portion of
it for a softball field.
• Fiore Property, privately owned. A portion of the property is currently under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) hazardous waste cleanup.
• Seven Springs, privately owned and is comprised of approximately 20 acres. At the time
of the study, the property was posted for sale.
• Boston Riverfront, riverfront recreation area and regional trail head.
• Round Hill Park, at the current soccer field site.
• Round Hill Park, at the former Nike missile site.
• Round Hill Park, in the northern section near SR 0048 and Scenic Drive.
• Church Property, centrally located in the community behind the municipal building.
This sight has recently become available due to the desire of the owner of Higher
Grounds Gospel Church to disband and sell the property.
• No-Build Alternative, modification of existing facilities to better meet the recreation

needs of the community; does not include constructing new, additional facilities.
Each site/alternative was visited, photographed, mapped, and evaluated for compatibility to meet
the Township need for a recreation center. A second public meeting was conducted to present
the survey results and alternative sites chosen for additional study.
Alternative Site Evaluation Results

Based on map review, site visits, and public comments received during the second public
meeting, the following conclusions were made regarding each of the alternatives:
• Howell Site
This 90 acre site is located along Lincoln Road and is currently owned by the Township.
The Howell Property has considerable environmental constraints towards its development
(i.e., wetlands, perennial streams, and drainage issues). Also, its acreage and topography
are not conducive to the building of athletic fields. This location is better suited to be left
as wooded, open space and the Township should look into developing nature trails and
other forms of passive recreation on the site as opposed to active recreation facilities.
Though there are many walking trails in the area, additional trails were sited as a need in
the public survey. Development of a master plan is necessary to determine the future
development of this 90 acre area. (See Appendix B, Figure 2B for a property site
location map.)
• Fiore Site
The Fiore Property has much potential. This site offers several vistas of the river valley,
contains an existing road, and has a fairly even terrain. Consequently, the cut and fill
requirements associated with parking lot and ball field development would be less
intensive than most of the indicated sites. Another advantage to this site is that it
contains a possible connection to the Youghiogheny River Trail.
Though part of the property is under USEPA and PADEP cleanup, there is sufficient
acreage to develop a recreation complex. A recreation complex could be developed
upgradient and distant from the clean-up area. If this site were chosen, it has the stigma
attached to it as a hazardous waste dump. A public involvement campaign would be
needed to convince parents it was a safe site for recreation. The site is also advantageous
because of the property owner’s willingness to negotiate to make the property acquisition
more feasible.
The major disadvantage of this site is that recreation development and associated traffic
could create additional noise and increased traffic due to sporting events. The traffic
could create problems with residents along Henderson Road, Oak Street, and safety
concerns at the intersection of Buena Vista and Henderson Road. This problem can be
alleviated. Mitigation would involve over half of a mile of new roadway extended from
Henderson Road in addition to the extensive upgrades needed on Henderson Road
approaching the site. The area is along the 100-year floodplain and is relatively flat.
Utilities and roadway access are not readily accessible, but could be made available. (See
Appendix B, Figure 3B for a property site location map.)
• Seven Springs Site

At the time of the study, this twenty (20) acre property was for sale. The site is adjacent
to both a golf course and residential properties. Though it contains twenty (20) acres, the
site location, orientation, and size are not conducive to active recreation development.
Site distance and set back requirements from the highway create potential driveway
access safety concern. This site will receive no further consideration. (See Appendix B,
Figure 4B for a property site location map.)
• Boston Riverfront
The Boston Riverfront Park has utilities, immediate trail access, and is a conducive site
for recreation. However, it is almost fully developed with little potential for additional
recreational development. Portions of the property are included in the 100-year
floodplain. It is not desirable to make significant changes to the site to meet current
recreation needs. No further study or consideration for this site to house a recreation
complex will be conducted. (See Appendix B, Figure 5B for a property site location
map.)
• Round Hill Park – Soccer Site

This site currently hosts the area soccer fields. However, expansion for further
recreational needs would be expensive due to the growth of grading necessary for
additional parking, site drainage, and storm water management. There are also conflicts
with the existing agricultural operations. While this section of Round Hill Park is
isolated from other land use, utility service to this high elevation property would also
prove to be costly. (See Appendix B, Figure 6B for a property site location map.)
• Round Hill Park – Nike Site

This site is isolated from other recreation land use and is compatible with the farm use of
Round Hill Park. Fields located in the area are not presently part of the farm operation
and could be converted to recreational use with reasonable cut and fill limits. The site is
accessible from Skyline Drive off of Pine View Drive. Access and egress issues, along
with utility availability, will need to be studied in further detail. There is water and
electricity accessible to the site. However, the site is not compatible with a Council of
Government (COG) operated shooting range for local police officers that is currently
located in this area. Topography issues also exist as narrow hillsides prevent a cohesive
complex and require extensive roadways. (See Appendix B, Figure 7B for a property site
location map.)
• Round Hill Park – Northern Site

This site is located near the intersection of SR 0048 and Scenery Drive. A perennial
stream runs through the site. Set back and permit requirements are a hindrance. During
the public involvement process, considerable discontent was registered among adjacent
property owners. This site is located adjacent to the high school football stadium, but a
point of access and close proximity to the intersection of SR 0048 and Scenery Drive is a
concern. Set back requirements from the roadway and stream location limit the site’s
development for a recreation complex. The required amount of acreage for a building,
parking, storm water management, and other amenities is likely to be too great for this
area. (See Appendix B, Figure 8B for a property site location map.)
• The Higher Ground Gospel Church (“Church”) Property

The Church Property was a late consideration in the feasibility study, but seems viable. It
is centrally located within the Township, behind the municipal building and has an
existing baseball field with utility, access, and zoning capabilities. Also, the existing
church can serve as a very capable multi-purpose recreation building. While the property
has sections of favorable topography, its lack of acreage makes the construction of soccer
fields to be virtually impossible. Also, property acquisition is an issue. It is
recommended that this lot be developed into a baseball complex with a recreation
building, trail, and event area. (See Appendix B, Figure 9B for a property site location
map.)
• No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative is another consideration within a feasible study. It is utilized if
all of the other sites and recreation ventures are determined to “not be feasible.” This
concept addresses areas to improve in order to better meet Township recreation needs,
rather than adding more facilities to an area.
The following criteria were utilized to evaluate the feasibility of the properties with regard to
their use as a recreation center:
Zoning Capability
• Recreation center complex is compatible with surrounding land use, planned
development, and comprehensive plans.
Utility
• Utilities (gas, electric, water, and sewage) are on-site or nearby.
Access/Traffic
• Site is centrally located, with good roadway access and potential site drives can be
placed with good sight distance.
• As a potential traffic generator, a recreation complex will likely not be detrimental to
the roadway’s level of service (LOS).
Environmental
• Overall environmental condition of the site is good with no visual signs or odors of
hazardous material releases, stressed vegetation, or surface water discoloration.
• Adjacent properties show no visual signs of contamination.
• Environmental constraints (floodways, wetlands, streams, etc.) would not restrict
development.
• If developed, on-site storm water runoff is manageable.
Acreage
• Acreage is sufficient for a multi-purpose building, recreation fields, parking, storm
water management, etc. Area is large enough to meet current demand and future
needs (20+ acres are required).
Topography
• Availability and access to flat, level sites for building(s) and athletic fields are
practical and feasible without excessive engineering or cut and fill requirements.
The site analysis of the aforementioned properties is illustrated in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Site Location Analysis

EVALUATION CRITERIA
Poor Fair Good
Zoning Compatibility
Environmental
Access/Traffic
SITE
Topography
LOCATION
Land Use
Acreage
Utility
1. Howell (90 ac. off Lincoln Road)
2. Fiore Property
3. Seven Springs Site (20 ac.)
4. Boston Riverfront
5. Round Hill Park - Soccer Site (Existing)
6. Round Hill Park - Nike Site
7. Round Hill Park - Northern
8. Church Property
Alternative Analysis
After analyzing the project study sites, the Fiore Property and Church Property were determined
to be the most conducive to recreation center development. The Fiore Property offers substantial
acreage of flat lands, scenic views, and a natural connection with the Youghiogheny River Trail.
While more limited in size and scope, the Church Property offers a centralized location, an
existing building, an existing baseball field, and is linked to the municipal building. These sites
will be carried forward for detailed study in accordance with the Pennsylvania Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR) Feasibility Study requirements.
The next step of the feasibility study was to determine if there were legal restrictions on the two
selected properties. In addition, a recreation need study was required to determine what
recreation facilities are best suited to meet local demands and how these properties were best
suited for recreation sites.
V. LEGAL FEASIBILITY
The Church Property is currently for sale and is listed by Howard Hanna Realty. The parish has
been dismantled. Accordingly, there are no known reasons as to why the Township could not
purchase and develop the property.
Discussions have occurred with owners of the Fiore Property. While parts of the property are
under reclamation by the PADEP, sections of the property along the western border are not
contaminated and are available for use. The owner(s) have interest in developing the remainder
of the property. There may be conflicts among heirs or caveats attached to the sale or disposition
of property. There is also the possibility of the Township to obtain a 25-year lease. If this were
the case, it would be recommended the Township only place soccer fields on the property with
no buildings.
As the Township continues to develop, the Township officials should consider a Township
ordinance regarding the preservation of open space and setting aside land for recreation. In
recent years it has become common practice across Pennsylvania for municipal governments to
request that property be set aside for recreation when developers create plans for residential
properties. Residential developments increase the need for local government to provide
recreation spaces and services. A resolution merits consideration of adoption by Township
officials.
VI. USAGE FEASIBILITY

The usage feasibility explores how practical the addition of recreational amenities would be in
the Township. It also helps determine the best use of the preferred alternative sites. This
concept is based upon both the current demographics of the area, the recreation facilities that are
currently available to the public, and the types of recreational facilities being considered to meet
the recreation needs of the community.
Population Analysis
People have different recreation interests due to differences in age, family status, income level,
health, and other variances in demographics. Therefore, it is critical to identify the following
characteristics listed above, especially the present predominant age groups within Elizabeth
Township, as well as to project these age groups into the future, so that the Township can
effectively plan recreation centers that are the most practical and feasible for its residents.
Elizabeth Township’s population as of 2000 is 13,839 residents. The Township’s population has
slightly decreased in size over the past forty (40) years and is projected to do so in the future.
Population Sizes
Table 5 - Elizabeth Township Population Statistics
Population
Current Statistics
Projections
2000 % Change in Population
2010 2020
Population from 1960-2000
13,839 -2.26% 12,488 12,967
Elizabeth Township is also an aging community. The median age increased from 39.3 years in
1990 to 43.3 years in 2000. Residents age 35 and older comprise almost 73 percent of the
Township’s population. The largest age group is the 35-54 year olds comprising 41.4 percent of
the population. This type of age group typically forms the backbone of a community. There is
often a high percentage of homeowners in this age cohort, with higher incomes and less demand
of public services. With an increasing median age and a large “middle-aged” group, Elizabeth
Township must plan accordingly for the future of the area.
Table 6 - Elizabeth Township General Demographics (2000)

POPULATION
Demographic Number Percent
Under 5 years 664 4.8%
5 to 9 years 824 6.0%
10 to 14 years 913 6.6%
15 to 19 years 852 6.2%
20 to 24 years 581 4.2%
25 to 34 years 1,375 9.9%
35 to 44 years 2,093 15.1%
45 to 54 years 2,273 16.4%
55 to 59 years 825 6.0%
60 to 64 years 739 5.3%
65 to 74 years 1,391 10.1%
75 to 84 years 1,012 7.3%
85 years and over 297 2.1%
Total Female 7,198 52.0%
Total Male 6,641 48.0%
Total Population 13,839 100.0%
Median Age in 1990 39.3 years

Median Age in 2000 43.3 years
Elizabeth Township has a relatively homogeneous population with a much lower percentage of
minorities than the state (2.6 percent versus 14.6 percent). In 2000, the racial make-up of the
Township consisted of 97.4 percent white, 1.7 percent African American, 0.3 percent Asian, 0.4
percent Hispanic, and 0.6 percent “Other.” It should be noted that the African American
population declined 0.6 percent from 1990 to 2000.
Table 7 - Percentages of Ethnic Groups Within Elizabeth Township

1990 2000
Demographic
Number Percent Number Percent
Population 14,712 100.0% 13,839 100.0%
White 14,312 97.3% 13,473 97.4%
African American 334 2.3% 234 1.7%
Native American 10 0.1% 6 0.0%
Asian 46 0.3% 38 0.3%
Hispanic 53 0.4% 51 0.4%
Other 10 0.1% 88 0.6%
Elizabeth Township is comprised of primarily family households, living in owner-occupied

housing units with married couples. Three quarters of the households in Elizabeth Township are
families of which 62.5 percent are married couple families. One third of the households have
individuals younger than 18 years old, while another one third of households consists of at least
one individual over 65 years old.
Table 8 - Elizabeth Township General Demographics (2000)

HOUSEHOLDS
HOUSEHOLD BY TYPE
Family households 4,105 75.1%
...With own children <18 years 1,547 28.3%
Married-couple family 3,419 62.5%
...With own children <18 years 1,243 22.7%
Female householder, no husband 499 9.1%
...With own children <18 years 224 4.1%
Non-family households 1,362 24.9%
…Householder living alone 1,213 22.2%
…Householder >65 years 629 11.5%
Households w/individuals <18 years 1,678 30.7%
Households w/individuals >65 years 1,817 33.2%
Total households 5,467 100.0%
Average household size 2.50 -
Average family size 2.92 -
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Occupied Housing Units 5,467 96.3%
Vacant Housing Units 211 3.7%
Seasonal/Rec/Occasional Use 12 0.2%
Total Housing Units 5,678 100.0%
Homeowner Vacancy Rate 1.3% -
Rental Vacancy Rate 4.3% -
HOUSING TENURE
Owner-occupied housing units 4,618 84.5%
Renter-occupied housing units 849 15.5%
Total occupied housing units 5,467 100.0%
Average household size (owners) 2.56 -
Average household size (renters) 2.14 -
A key to the continual growth of Elizabeth Township is to attract businesses and develop a labor
base. Attracting a strong labor base needs to include young people with diverse backgrounds and
educations. Elizabeth Township needs to develop a recreation facility to accommodate
teams or groups that will be multicultural in gender, age, and ethnicity.
Education
Elizabeth Township school enrollment is illustrated in Table 9. The highest percentage of
students is enrolled in elementary school. The percentages of students enrolled in the various
levels of education correspond well with the demographics of the area. Thus, most, if not all,
children in the area are enrolled in some level of education.
Table 9 - School Enrollment in Elizabeth Township (2000)

Nursery school, preschool 259 8.1%
Kindergarten 175 5.5%
Elementary school (grades 1-8) 1,382 43.3%
High school (grades 9-12) 879 27.6%
College or graduate school 494 15.5%
Total population (>3 yrs.) enrolled in school 3,189 100.0%
The level of education accomplished consists of much smaller percentages of the “over 25” age
group. Less than half of these residents are high school graduates. However, Elizabeth
Township holds higher numbers than both the county and state in the percent of high school
graduates and Associate’s Degree holders. Elizabeth Township was equal to the state in the
percentage of residents with their Bachelor’s Degree (14.0 percent), but had less than Allegheny
County.
Table 10 – Educational Attainment in Elizabeth Township (2000)

Percent of persons 25 Percent of persons 25 Percent of persons 25
and older that are and older with their and older with their
high school graduates Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree
Elizabeth Township 42.3% 10.0% 14.0%
Allegheny County 33.9% 7.1% 17.3%

Pennsylvania 38.1% 5.9% 14.0%
Table 11 - Household and Family Income in Elizabeth Township (1999)

HOUSEHOLDS FAMILIES
INCOME IN 1999
Amount Percent Amount Percent
Total Households/Families 5,484 100.0% 4,158 100.0%
Less than $10,000 375 6.8% 101 2.4%
$10,000 to $14,999 347 6.3% 150 3.6%
$15,000 to $24,999 627 11.4% 380 9.1%
$25,000 to $34,999 788 14.4% 608 14.6%
$35,000 to $49,999 946 17.3% 790 19.0%
$50,000 to $74,999 1,348 24.6% 1,189 28.6%
$75,000 to $99,999 560 10.2% 474 11.4%
$100,000 to $149,999 370 6.7% 352 8.5%
$150,000 to $199,999 68 1.2% 59 1.4%
$200,000 or more 55 1.0% 55 1.3%
Median household income $42,463 - - -
Median family income - - $50,740 -
Per capita income - - $20,904 -

Median earnings:
Male full-time, year-round workers - - $41,145 -
Female full-time, year-round workers - - $25,988 -
Households with…
Earnings 4,112 75.0% - -
…Mean earnings $52,898 - - -
Social Security income 2,042 37.2% - -
..Mean Social Security income $12,552 - - -
Supplemental Security income 109 2.0% - -
..Mean Supplemental Security income $5,385 - - -
Public assistance income 108 2.0% - -
…Mean public assistance Income $2,151 - - -
Retirement income 1,334 24.3% - -
…Mean retirement income $18,041 - - -
Elizabeth Township’s median household income in 1999 was $42,463, with approximately 42
percent of households earning between $35,000 and $74,999 annually. The Township’s median
income is relatively higher at $50,740 annually. Both the median family and household incomes
are slightly higher than the state’s median income level.
Three quarters of the Township is categorized as “earnings,” while over one third of the
population receives Social Security income, and another quarter receive a retirement income.
Only a fraction of households receive either supplemental security income or public assistance.
The median income for male full-time workers is substantially higher than females (men earn 37
percent more than women in Elizabeth Township).
Table 12 – Family and Household Income (2000)

Median Family Income
Elizabeth Township $50,740
Pennsylvania $49,184
Median Household Income
Elizabeth Township $42,463
Pennsylvania $40,106
Marital Status
Elizabeth Township has a dominant population of married couples (see Table 12). However,
even a small amount of single-parent households can have a significant impact on the ability of a
family to partake in recreational activities.
Table 13 - Marital Status/Grandparent Care in Elizabeth Township (2000)

MARITAL STATUS
Never married 2,299 20.1%
Now married (except separated) 7,406 64.7%
Separated 139 1.2%
Widowed 893 7.8%
..…Female 766 6.7%
Divorced 715 6.2%
…..Female 440 3.8%
Population 15 years and older 11,452 100.0%
GRANDPARENTS AS CAREGIVERS
Grandparent living in household with one or
13 -
more own grandchildren <18 years
Grandparent responsible for grandchildren 7 -
With 1.2 percent separated and 6.2 percent divorced, there are 854 single-parent homes in
Elizabeth Township, which affect recreation needs. Single parents generally have less time to
get children to and from recreation facilities and programs. The large amount of area that
Elizabeth Township makes up also has an impact. Some children cannot walk or bike to
facilities or program sites. Less free time available for single parents and the location of
facilities and programs can impact how often a single parent can transport children to and from
activities and sites.
Developing a User Profile

A review of Township demographics revealed that residents age 35 and older comprise almost
75 percent of the Township, with seniors, age 65 and older; representing 19.5 percent of this
statistic. Therefore, the recreation center must meet the needs of these age groups, as well as the
young. Several key-person interview respondents indicated the Township needed to develop a
recreation center to make the Township more attractive to young adults. A recreation center was
also cited as an attraction to retain or attract the 20 to 34 year old cohort into the Township.
Currently this age group only accounts for 14.1 percent of the Township population.
National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA)

Standards
A comparison of available recreation facilities in the Township to the National Recreation and
Park Association (NRPA) Standards is illustrated below in Figure 17. Table 4 provides a
summary of Elizabeth Township recreation facilities. Appendix C includes an illustration that
indicates the location of each of these facilities in the Township.
The “National Standards” have been adopted by the NRPA as the current means to determine a
recommended ratio of acreage of open space in comparison to population or per capita. The
purpose of the publication is to underscore the most important objectives of the park and
recreation planning process; to ensure that a community knows how to go about securing enough
of the right kind of land to provide the scale of recreation space system the majority of the
citizenry desire.
In growth impacted communities such as Elizabeth Township, land for parks and recreation is
often at a premium and needs to be acquired in a timely manner before land is lost forever. The
same is true for those elements of the community landscape which should be protected through
some kind of community open lands preservation program.
Table 4 - Inventory of the Recreation Facilities within Elizabeth Township

Site Site Name Site Address Block & Lot / Tax Total Type of Handicap Facility
# / Property ID # Acreage Parcel Accessible Inventory
BASEBALL
BASKETBALL
1 Blythedale Playground Parkview 1569-D-78 3.651 PARKLET No PARKING
PICNIC
PLAYGROUND
TRAIL 2 PARKING
2 Youghiogheny River Trail N/A N/A N/A OTHER Yes 2 PICNIC
2 RESTROOM
BASKETBALL
3 Buena Vista Wildcat Hollow 1127-A-269 N/A OTHER Unknown
TENNIS
BASKETBALL
4 Greenock Playground Lutheran Lane 651-J-58 N/A PARKLET Yes PARKING
PLAYGROUND
BASKETBALL
5 Boston Basketball Court E. Smithfield St. 653-G-231 N/A OTHER Yes
PARKING
BASEBALL
BOATING
FISHING
1 3 PARKING
6 Boston Tot Lot Donner St. 653-K-174 N/A PARKLET Yes
PICNIC
PLAYGROUND
RESTROOM
SOCCER
7 Central School Playground Rock Run Road 1129-B-275 N/A SCHOOL Yes PLAYGROUND
BASKETBALL
8 Victory School Douglas Run 1733-M-219 N/A OTHER Unknown
PARKING
NATURE
9 PICNIC
2
9 Round Hill Park N/A N/A 1101 REGIONAL Yes 3 RESTROOM
4 SOCCER
3+ PLAYGROUND
PARKING
10 Stoneybrook Andover 1270-D-342 367 PARKLET Yes
PLAYGROUND
11 Industry Ballfield Maria St. 1266-B-58 N/A OTHER Unknown BASEBALL
BASEBALL
12 Twele Ballfiled Twele Road 651-F-325 3.93 OTHER Yes PARKING
PICNIC
Greenock Buena BASEBALL
13 Lucas Butler Memorial Field 652-H-118 N/A OTHER Yes
Vista Road PARKING
Boston Mehodist Church BASEBALL
14 E. Smithfield St. 653-G-194 N/A OTHER Yes
Field PARKING
BASEBALL
15 McHenry Ballfield Scenery Drive 1130-C-54 N/A OTHER Yes
PARKING
BASEBALL
PARKING
16 Blaine Hill Recreation Area Kendall Way 1132-G-230 232 OTHER Unknown
PICNIC
RESTROOM
BASEBALL
3 FOOTBALL
17 Elizabeth Forward HS Fields Weigles Hill 1417-C-43 N/A OTHER Yes
RESTROOM
SOCCER
BASKETBALL
18 Timothy Drive Tot Lot Jefferies Drive 1269-D-317 N/A Unknown
PLAYGROUND
BASEBALL
19 Municipal Field Rock Run Road 1129-L-251 N/A OTHER Yes BASKETBALL
PARKING
BASEBALL
PARKING
20 Mt. Vernon Youth Association Georgetown 997-B-98 0.0424 OTHER Unknown
PLAYGROUND
TENNIS
Data Source: Allegheny County Comprehensive Plan
NOTE: The following comments on soccer fields were made by Drew Mueller, President, EFSA.
1
One small field as listed, is not large enough for a full-size field.
2
Only one full-size field at this site.
3
The turf football field is available for soccer in the spring only and at a cost of $300 for the season plus $30
to $38 per hour. The cost makes it prohibitive to use for practices. The EFSA Soccer Association reserves it
for 8 Sundays at approximately $2,000.
Determining Park Facility Needs and Program Demand

Analysis
The demand analysis involved a five-pronged approach for determining what citizens currently
desire, what they want in the future, and the park and recreation activities in which they currently
participate. The demand analysis consisted of performing:
1. Community needs assessment (survey).

2. Program analysis identifying recreation participation.
3. Comparison of facilities to National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Standards.
4. Park & Recreation Board, Steering Committee, and public meetings to obtain public
input on need for facilities and programs.
5. Demographic analysis.
The purpose of the demand analysis is to:
• Determine current activities and the most popular park resources.

• Provide an opportunity for community input and participation in the planning process.
• Establish a database of important facts for the Township.
• Determine current trends or changes in the desires of residents.
• Determine facility updates, new facilities needed, and program needs.
Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and

Guidelines
The NRPA recognizes the importance of establishing and using park and recreation standards as:
1. A national expression of minimum acceptable facilities for citizens of urban and rural
communities.
2. A guideline to determine land requirements for various types of park and recreation areas
and facilities.
3. A basis for relating recreational needs to spatial analysis within a community-wide
system of parks and open space areas.
4. A major reference to guide and assist regional park and recreation development.
5. A means to justify the need for parks and open space within the overall land-use pattern
of a region or community.
The purpose of the NRPA guidelines is to present park and recreation space standards that are
applicable nationwide for planning, acquisition, and development of park, recreation, and open
space lands, primarily at the community level. These standards were viewed and used solely as a
guide for this study. NRPA standards address minimum, not maximum, goals to be achieved.
The standards were interpreted according to Elizabeth Township’s specific local needs.
A variety of standards have been developed by professional and trade associations, which are
used throughout the country. The basic standards were derived from early studies of park
acreages located within metropolitan and rural areas. Over time, the figure of 10 acres per 1,000
people came to be the commonly accepted standard used by a majority of communities. Other
standards adopted include the “percent of area” approach, needs determined by user
characteristics and participation projections, and area use based on the carrying capacity of the
land. The fact that some of the standards have changed substantially is not an indication of their
obsolescence. Changes are a measure of the growing awareness and understanding of both
participant and resource (land, water, etc.) limitations. Parks are for people, and in this study, the
residents of Elizabeth Township.
Figure 14 - Recreation Facility Comparison in Elizabeth Township to the National

Standards
16
14
Present Facilities Minimum
12
10
0
B aseb all/ Sof t b all B asket b all B o at ing A ccess Designat ed Fo o t b all Nat ure Facilit y Picnic Pavillio n Playground So ccer/ Hockey Tennis
Fishing A rea
Figure 14 and Table 14 provide a summary of facilities that are needed according to the NRPA
standards. While the standards do not dictate a need for sports fields (football, soccer, baseball,
softball), a recreation complex for sports tournaments was cited as a need in the public comment
forms and by key-person interviews.
Table 14 - Recreation Facilities: Existing versus Need

Elizabeth Twp.
Activity/ Recommended Space Recommended Size and Recommended No. of Units per Park Needs
Facility Requirements Dimensions Orientation Population Existing/Need
Basketball
1. Youth 2,400-3,036 sq. ft. 46-50' x 84'
2. High School 5,040-7,280 sq. ft. 50' x 84' Long axis north-south 1 per 5,000 2/2
with 5' unobstructed
space on all sides
Rink 85'x200' (minimum Indoor - 1 per
22,000 sq. ft. including 85'x185') Additional Long axis north-south, if 100,000
Ice Skating 0/0
support area 5,000 sq. ft. support area outdoor Outdoor - depends
on climate
Minimum of 7,200 sq. ft. 36' x 78'
Tennis single court (2 acres for 12' clearance; both sides Long axis north-south 1 court per 2,000 0/6
complex) 21' clearance; both ends
30' x 60'
Volleyball Minimum of 4,000 sq. ft. Minimum 6' clearance on Long axis north-south 1 per 5,000 0/2
all sides
Baselines – 60’
Baseball 1.2 A minimum Pitching distance - 46' 0/0

Foul lines - 200'
Center field - 200'-250'
Baselines - 60'
1 per 5,000 (if also
Pitching distance - 46'
Softball 1.5 to 2.0 A Same as baseball used for youth 0/0
min. 40'
baseball)
250' to center field
Minimum Fall season - long axis
180' x 300' with a northwest to southwest.
Field Hockey minimum of 6' clearance For longer periods, north- 1 per 20,000 6/0
on all sides south.
1.5 A
Minimum 160' x 360' with a
minimum of 6' clearance
Football Same as field hockey 1 per 20,000 1/0
on all sides
1.5 A
195' to 225' x 330' to 360'
Soccer 1.7 - 2.1 A with a minimum 10' Same as field hockey 1 per 10,000 6/0
clearance on all sides
Long axis in sector from
Overall width - 276'
north to south to north-
Length - 600.02'
Fitness Trail 4.3 A west-south-east with finish 1 per 20,000 0/1
Track width for 8 to 4
line at northerly end
lanes is 32'
Multiple Recreation Long axis of courts with

Court (basketball, 9,840 sq. ft. 120' x 80' primary use is north- 1 per 10,000 0/1
volleyball, tennis) south
Well defined head
maximum 10' width,
maximum average grade
is 5% not to exceed 15%.
Trails N/A N/A 1 system per region 1/0
Capacity rural trails - 40
hikers/day/mile. Urban
trails - 90 hikers/day/mile.
Site Topography and Roadway Impact Analysis

The topography and roadway network of the Township is such that all available facilities are
scattered. Other than Round Hill Park, the Township has no centralized active park. It is here
that the need lies. There is currently no existing Township park typical of the description for a
“community park” as provided in the NRPA, Recreation and Greenway Guidelines. The purpose
of a community park is to focus on “meeting community based recreation needs, as well as
preserving unique landscapes and open spaces.”
Demographic profiles (13,839 residents, 5,467 households) population density, resource

availability, and recreation demand within the service area are the primary determinants for the
size of the community park. As this study reveals, Elizabeth Township has a considerable
number of ball fields, but lacks a centralized community park for both passive and active
recreational pursuits.
Based on the public involvement results and an initial alternative site analysis, two (2) properties
were examined in further detail: the Fiore Property and the Higher Ground Gospel Church
Property.
These properties were studied to determine what facilities they were best suited for based on the
topography, acreage, utilities, and potential development cost.
VII. VISION FOR THE FUTURE

The initial scopes of work for this project called for the consultant to only provide “bubble
drawings” of a potential site within Round Hill Park for a possible recreation center and develop
a cost estimate of this endeavor. Input from the public involvement process and study committee
recommendations resulted in nine (9) various scenarios with four (4) properties:
• Higher Group Gospel Church Property

• Fiore Property
• Nike Property at Round Hill Park
• Northern Section of Round Hill Park
The Higher Ground Gospel Church Property and Scenario #3 of the Fiore Property were
determined to be the most feasible and practical sites to meet the recreation needs of the
Township. Given the topography of the other sites, it was determined these two (2) sites were
topographically the best suited for a recreation complex. The earthwork costs associated with all
of all the other sites rendered them unfeasible to develop.
Rather than simply produce “bubble drawings,” PBS&J utilized the software package, Geopack,
to determine quantities of earthwork required for recreation field pads, buildings, roadway
improvements, and utility excavation.
Geopack is a comprehensive software package that allows users to undertake geostatistical

analyses of spatially correlated data. The program generates graphics (linear plots, contour and
block diagrams); computes basic statistics (mean, median, variance, skew); runs programs for
linear regression and polynomial regression; calculates linear estimations and nonlinear
estimations; and determines sample semivariograms and cross-semivariograms. Geopack also
allows users to incorporate additional programs at a later date without having to later pervious
programs or recompile the entire system. Volume quantities are calculated on a three-
dimensional model. Costs were determined through national standards.
Fiore Property
The Fiore Property cost estimate has been developed under the assumption that the property will
be donated to the Township.
Site Advantages:
• Convenient to the Youghiogheny River Trail
• Relatively flat terrain with panoramic view of river
• Compatible with surrounding land use
Site Disadvantages:
• Roadway access
• Utility availability
• Private Ownership
Site Layout:
• Area for restrooms and concession
• Three (3) soccer fields
Tables 15 and 16 provide the preliminary cost estimate to develop the project for recreation,
which includes a soccer complex. At the present time, the property is under private ownership.
The recommendation is to obtain a 25-year lease (minimum) to develop a soccer complex. No
permanent large structures (buildings) are recommended, unless a longer lease or acquisition
occurs. Access improvements are necessary. A small concession stand/restroom building would
be necessary for tournaments.
Table 15. Fiore Property III Quantity Takeoff

Earthwork
Clearing and Grubbing 3.3 Acre Large Soccer Field (Park1)
1.8 Acre Parking Lot (Park3)
2 Acre Small Soccer Field (Park 5)
3.2 Acre Large Soccer Field (Park6)
3.5 Acre Complex (Park 7)
+ 0.1 Acre All New Roads
13.9 Acre
SUM CUT FILL

Excavation 457 40000 39543 CY Total Excavation
Roads
New Roads 942 LY
4 LY
+ 5 LY
951 LY
* 8 LY
7608 SY
Upgrade Existing 1547 LY

Roads * 8 LY
12376 LY
Parking
Parking 733 SY Inside Complex
(Minimum 9680 SY) 537 SY Inside Complex
2245 SY
+ 6339 SY
9854 SY
Soccer Fields
Sod 7534 SY Small Soccer Field
11733 SY Large Soccer Field
+ 11733 SY Large Soccer Field
31000 SY
Seeding 1.8 Acre Small Soccer Field

2.8 Acre Large Soccer Field
+ 2.7 Acre Large Soccer Field
7.3 Acre
Building Footprints
Restroom/Concession 560 SF Building Size
Building
Table 16A. Fiore Property III Preliminary Cost Estimate

Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Earthwork
Clearing and Grubbing 13.9 Acre $4,000.00 $55,600
Class 1 Excavation 40000 CY $8.00 $320,000
Drainage
12" RCP 700 LF $70.00 $49,000
18" RCP 380 LF $80.00 $30,400
Inlets 7 Each $2,000.00 $14,000
Soccer Fields*
Sod 31000 SY $2.50 $77,500
Fencing, 4 ft. Chain Link (1 per field) 3 Fields $12,000.00 $36,000
Seeding 7.3 Acre $166.67 $1,217
Building Footprints/Utilities
Super Secure Restroom Building Kit 560 SF $30,000
Base/Utilities (Electric, Water, Sewage) - $22,000
TOTAL $635,717
Contingency (15%) $95,358
$731,074
Escalation (6%/Year) $43,864
$774,939
*Goals, benches, bleachers, scoreboards, etc. would need to be supplied by the Soccer Association.
Roadway and parking improvements would need to come from the Township road program. An
estimate of these incurred costs is provided in Table 16B.
Table 16B. Roadway and Parking Access Cost Estimate

New Roads
1.5" Wearing 7608 SY $7.00 $53,256
2" Binder 7608 SY $7.00 $53,256
4" BCBC 7608 SY $20.00 $152,160
6" 2A Subbase 7608 SY $7.50 $57,060
Existing Roads
1.5" Milling 12376 SY $4.50 $55,692
1.5" Wearing 12376 SY $7.00 $86,632
Parking
1.5" Wearing 9854 SY $7.00 $68,978
6" BCBC 9854 SY $24.00 $236,496
6" 2A Subbase 9854 SY $7.50 $73,905
Total Costs $837,435
Higher Ground Gospel Church Property

The Church Property is displayed in Appendix B, Figure 9B.
Site Advantages:
• Existing building adaptable to recreation
• Existing utilities
• Roadway access
• Proximity to the Township municipal building and maintenance garage
• Vegetative buffer between property and adjacent homes
Site Disadvantages:
• Under private ownership, but for sale
• Topography for soccer is inhibitive
Tables 17 and 18 provide the quantities and associated cost estimated to develop the property for
recreation. The site has much to offer, but soccer fields are better suited for the Fiore Property
site.
Table 17. Church Property Quantity Takeoff

Earthwork
Clearing and Grubbing 4 Acres
SUM CUT FILL

Excavation 1 14663 14662 CY
Roads
New Roads 275 LY

* 4 LY
1100 SY
Parking
Parking 3226 SY
Baseball Field
Sod 10327 SY
Seeding 2.1 Acre
Table 18. Church Property III Preliminary Cost Estimate

Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Earthwork
Clearing and Grubbing 4 Acre $6,000.00 $24,000
Class 1 Excavation 14663 CY $8.00 $117,304
Roads
1.5" Wearing (Roads) 1100 SY $7.00 $7,700
2" Binder (Roads) 1100 SY $7.00 $7,700
4" BCBC (Roads) 1100 SY $20.00 $22,000
6" 2A Subbase (Roads) 1100 SY $7.50 $8,250
Parking
1.5" Wearing (Parking) 3226 SY $7.00 $22,582
6" BCBC (Parking) 3226 SY $24.00 $77,424
6" 2A Subbase (Parking) 3226 SY $7.50 $24,195
Drainage
12" RCP 1000 LF $70.00 $70,000
18" RCP 500 LF $80.00 $40,000
Inlets 10 EACH $2,000.00 $20,000
Baseball Fields
Sod 10327 SY $2.50 $25,818
Backstop, Chain Link, Galv ( 1 per field) 3 Each $2,200.00 $6,600
Dugouts (2 per field) 6 Each $3,400.00 $20,400
Bleachers (2 per field - 4 for HS Field) 8 Each $1,850.00 $14,800
Fencing, 4 ft. Chain Link (1 per field) 3 Fields $12,000.00 $36,000
Scoreboard (1 per field) 3 Each $2,400.00 $7,200
Seeding 2.1 Acre $166.67 $350
Utilities
Electric/Phone (2 - 6" Schedule 40) 250 LF $22.80 $5,700 ***
Electric Company 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000 ***
Gas (3" Schedule 40) 250 LF $19.00 $4,750 ***
Water (4" DI) 250 LF $30.00 $7,500 ***
Sewage (6" SDR 35) 250 LF $25.00 $6,250 ***
Sanitary Manholes 2 EACH $2,500.00 $5,000 ***
Other Costs
Property Acquisition 19.1 Acre xxx $500,000
Mobilization $150,000
TOTAL $1,251,523
Contingency (15%) $187,728
$1,439,251
Escalation (6%/Year) $86,355
$1,525,606
***Unit prices derived from Washington Square Job Costs
Note: Cost estimate does not include many factors; i.e. Building cost, lighting, trails, landscaping, drainage (where
necessary), and other characteristics of the built environment (sidewalks, guardrails, stairs, etc.).
As a result of the survey process, key-person interviews, and Steering Committee comments, the
need was placed on areas to have centralized baseball/softball and soccer tournaments, as well as
for areas for senior citizens to gather, and trails. Though the number of play fields may be
adequate according to current NRPA standards, there is a need to have fields centralized for
tournament play. Tournaments can also provide a means to raise funds for capital improvements
and maintenance.
Locating both a baseball and soccer complex in one (1) area to meet Elizabeth Township needs
requires a minimum of twenty (20) acres of flat, developable land. Given the physiograpic
terrain of the Township, that is not a feasible endeavor at a reasonable cost. Converting the
Church Property into a recreation center with a baseball complex seems logical, while the Fiore
Property can be developed into a soccer complex.
The existing Church Property can also host a basketball/tennis court complex. The existing
building is easily adaptable for senior citizen usage, holding events, summer day/nature camps,
or other events including private rentals.
VIII. FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATION

CONSIDERATIONS
The difficulty herein lies in the fact as to whether or not acquisition and development of the
Church Property and Fiore Property are economically feasible for Elizabeth Township. It is a
decision that ultimately lies within the hands Township supervisors.
While the results of the survey indicated 87.7 percent of the respondents did not want to see any
new taxes to fund the recreation complex, some funds from the Township general fund are
inevitable. Whether funds come from the Township general fund without raising the bottom line
is a decision on the part of the Board of Supervisors. Table 19 provides the projected total costs
of developing both the Church Property and the Fiore Property. Cost does not include new
roadway improvements to the access road.
Table 19. Church Property/Fiore Property: Total Costs

Subject Cost
Fiore Property (Recreation) $774,939
Church Property $1,525,606
Total $2,300,545
Elizabeth Township Park and Recreation Allocation
With a total population of 13,839 residents, Elizabeth Township falls within the middle of those
Pennsylvania municipalities between 10,000 and 14,999 residents. According to the latest
Budget and Salary Survey provided by the PADCNR and the Pennsylvania Recreation and Park
Society (PRPS), the per capita expenditure for parks and recreation for municipalities this size is
$19.03. The annual allocation for Elizabeth Township should be around $229,597. Over a ten
(10) year period, that would amount to $2,295,670 without inflation or population increases or
decreases. Over the ten (10) year period, recreation development could be feasible. Grants
would help reach the goal before the ten (10) year period concludes.
Proposed Annual Park Operation and Maintenance Budget
Projected Operating and Maintenance Expenses
Administration
Some general administrative cost increases will occur as the park develops. Blanket insurance
coverage will increase as facilities and programs are developed and added. Proper construction
specifications, techniques, planning, and continued preventive maintenance will prevent
accidents and keep insurance premiums at a respectable level.
Other general increases in office supplies, mailing, advertisements, and phone bills are
anticipated during the early development years. Public relations expenditures should involve the
dedication of various facilities as they are added, as well as other programs such as “volunteer of
the year,” group awards, acknowledgment for corporate donations, etc. Training of staff and
volunteers must keep pace with current trends in the leisure services and related fields.
Personnel
Part-time seasonal recreation position(s) and maintenance position(s) should be created. These
would be part-time Township employees with no fringe benefits. Some overtime could be
expected on weekends, program offerings, holidays, and special events if so directed by the
Township. Part-time college students, high school students, or previously retired individuals
may be desirable as employees under the direction of the Township supervisors. Park,
recreation, or physical education interns from local colleges could be hired under the
management and supervision of the Township supervisors. “Co-ops” and free labor for college
credit can come from local colleges to assist with creating and administering programs.
Materials/Supplies
These supplies are necessary to carry out the maintenance program for the park when the park is
completely developed. These would include fertilizer for the fields, cleaning agents needed for
restrooms and buildings, paint for play equipment, hoses, signs, tractor fuel, equipment
lubricants, and minor tools, etc. A capital equipment maintenance budget should be established
to purchase mowing equipment.
Programming
The organizing for special events and programs will require staff and volunteer hours. Much of
this effort can be provided by volunteers.
Maintenance
Keeping the recreation center in good repair so people want to use the facilities is important.
Considerable on-going administrative effort is imperative to foster good planning. An ongoing
commitment by Township officials will be needed to maintain the park in peak condition.
Maintenance will involve as a minimum:
1. Regular – grass mowing, litter and waste receptacle pickup, restroom cleaning and
maintenance, inspections of playground equipment/fences/gates, trail wood chipping,
court/building/pavilion cleaning.
2. Seasonal – flower bed planting and weeding, drinking fountain and plumbing
maintenance, fertilizer, pest control, sprinkler maintenance (grassy areas), leaf
raking/blowing, pruning.
3. Periodic – ball field/in-field dragging, sign maintenance, graffiti removal, storm damage
repairs and plumbing, painting, carpentry repairs
Recreation Center Revenues
Daily admission or entrance fees can be charged for arts and crafts shows, antique car shows,
flea markets, tournaments, etc. Seasonal permits can be offered for ball field use or picnic areas.
Facility rental costs can be set by the Township annually to keep pace with rising maintenance
costs. Classes, lessons, and programs including art and nature or sports camps can include
modest maintenance fees. Privately run week-long summer sports camps can create modest park
revenue. Concession stand operation could be contracted out by the Township during holiday
and special events, ball games, and tournaments and revenue could be used to offset maintenance
costs. If volunteers cannot be found, concessions can be controlled by the individual sports
group with a percentage of sales going to the park fund. Donations from individuals, clubs, or
associations and corporations should be formally encouraged.
The Township should consider the establishment of a Parks and Recreation Foundation. This
foundation would provide the Parks & Recreation Board with a formal method of receiving gifts
and endowments from individuals, organizations, and businesses interested in assisting the
Township. A foundation or trust fund established with the interest in building and improving
recreation can attract donations from citizens, businesses, clubs, and other foundations.
Corporations, local businesses, private foundations, and other philanthropic organizations are
excellent sources of financing for local programs. They may choose to sponsor various parks
and recreation programs as well as provide significant funding for new projects. One such
project, successful nationwide, is the “Adopt-A-Park” program in which a corporate group
agrees to pay the operation and maintenance costs of a park for a specific period of time as a
contribution to the local community. Tax advantages for corporate gifts to the community
service agencies provide additional motivation for gifts. Also, corporations frequently provide
funds for special projects or competitions.
Individuals, families, or organizations may join the Recreation Program through the purchase of
a yearly or lifetime membership. Such membership would provide special benefits, such as free
entry to a facility or event, invitation to special events, periodic newsletters or a calendar of
upcoming events, or possibly first-preference for picnic permits, etc. Establishing a regular line
item in the Township Council Fund Budget is necessary for daily operation and maintenance of a
recreation center.
Table 20 – Estimated Ten Year Budget for Park Operation & Maintenance and Revenues
Elizabeth Township Feasibility Study for a Recreation Complex
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
A. ADMINISTRATION
Insurance $1,600 $1,760 $1,936 $2,130 $2,343 $2,577 $2,834 $3,118 $3,430 $3,773
Prof. Membership (PRPS) $100 $110 $121 $133 $146 $161 $177 $195 $214 $236
Office Supplies $400 $440 $484 $532 $586 $644 $709 $779 $857 $943
Phone $250 $275 $303 $333 $366 $403 $443 $487 $536 $589
Public Relations $600 $660 $726 $799 $878 $966 $1,063 $1,169 $1,286 $1,415
Training (PRPS) $350 $385 $424 $466 $512 $564 $620 $682 $750 $825
Subtotals $3,300 $3,630 $3,993 $4,392 $4,832 $5,315 $5,846 $6,431 $7,074 $7,781
B. PERSONNEL (Seasonal)
Recreation (1) $2,800 $3,080 $3,388 $3,727 $4,099 $4,509 $4,960 $5,456 $6,002 $6,602
Maintenance (1) $3,800 $4,180 $4,598 $5,058 $5,564 $6,120 $6,732 $7,405 $8,146 $8,960
Contracted Services $1,200 $1,320 $1,452 $1,597 $1,757 $1,933 $2,126 $2,338 $2,572 $2,830
Subtotals $7,800 $8,580 $9,438 $10,382 $11,420 $12,562 $13,818 $15,200 $16,720 $18,392
C. MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Concessions, Equipment $950 $1,045 $1,150 $1,264 $1,391 $1,530 $1,683 $1,851 $2,036 $2,240
Fuel, Lube, Equipment $2,850 $2,935 $3,029 $3,131 $3,244 $3,369 $3,506 $3,656 $3,822 $4,004
Tools/Minor Equipment $725 $798 $877 $965 $1,061 $1,168 $1,284 $1,413 $1,554 $1,710
Utilities $200 $220 $242 $266 $293 $322 $354 $390 $429 $472
General Construction $3,995 $4,395 $4,834 $5,317 $5,849 $6,434 $7,077 $7,785 $8,564 $9,420
Subtotals $8,720 $9,392 $10,132 $10,944 $11,838 $12,823 $13,905 $15,095 $16,405 $17,845
D. PROGRAMMING
Camps, Clinics, Events $750 $825 $908 $998 $1,098 $1,208 $1,329 $1,462 $1,608 $1,768
Supplies $850 $935 $1,029 $1,131 $1,244 $1,369 $1,506 $1,656 $1,822 $2,004
Costs $950 $1,045 $1,150 $1,264 $1,391 $1,530 $1,683 $1,851 $2,036 $2,240
Subtotals $2,550 $2,805 $3,086 $3,394 $3,733 $4,107 $4,517 $4,969 $5,466 $6,013
E. MAINTENANCE
Equip. Maj. Purchase $12,500 $12,750 $13,025 $13,328 $13,600 $14,026 $14,429 $14,872 $15,359 $15,895
Facility (General) $12,750 $13,025 $13,328 $13,660 $14,026 $14,492 $14,872 $15,359 $15,895 $16,484
Site Maintenance/Repairs $2,950 $3,245 $3,570 $3,926 $4,319 $4,751 $5,226 $5,749 $6,324 $6,956
Equip. Capital Reserve $3,500 $3,850 $4,235 $4,659 $5,124 $5,637 $6,200 $6,821 $7,503 $8,253
Subtotals $31,700 $32,870 $34,158 $35,573 $37,069 $38,906 $40,728 $42,800 $45,080 $47,588
TOTAL OPERATING
$46,270 $48,697 $51,368 $54,303 $57,473 $61,150 $64,996 $69,295 $74,025 $79,227
COSTS
F. REVENUES
Entrance Fees $2,000 $2,200 $2,420 $2,662 $2,928 $3,221 $3,543 $3,897 $4,287 $4,716
Season Permits $1,500 $1,650 $1,815 $1,997 $2,196 $2,416 $2,657 $2,923 $3,215 $3,537
Camps, Clinics, Events $3,100 $3,410 $3,751 $4,126 $4,539 $4,993 $5,492 $6,041 $6,645 $7,310
Concession Sales $3,900 $4,290 $4,719 $5,191 $5,710 $6,281 $6,909 $7,600 $8,360 $9,196
TOTAL REVENUES $10,500 $11,550 $12,705 $13,976 $15,373 $16,910 $18,601 $20,462 $22,508 $24,758
*Summer College Intern: Spring - Nature activities at parks, assist in preparation of summer special events; Summer - Recreation Program/Camp. Clinics/sports
camps with volunteers; Fall - Nature Program.
Survey results revealed that parks, recreation, and open space contribute to Elizabeth Township’s
high quality of life. Elizabeth Township residents enjoy green open spaces and recreation
activities for all ages. This Feasibility Study identifies parks, recreation, and open space needs,
acknowledges the interests of all residents, reflects the Township’s demographic trends, and
provides a guide for future recreation to be administered efficiently.
Over the next ten (10) years, residents and Elizabeth Township officials should support this
system as the Township recreation efforts continue to be a defining feature of the community.
Recreation Open Space Recommendation

As the Township continues to develop, the Township officials should consider a Township
ordinance regarding the preservation of open space and setting aside land for recreation. In
recent years it has become common practice across Pennsylvania for municipal governments to
request that property be set aside for recreation when developers create plans for residential
properties. Residential developments increase the need for local government to provide
recreation spaces and services.
A sample resolution would read as follows consideration and merits consideration of adoption by
Township officials. A fee in lieu of property donation can go toward developing existing park
land and implementing the master plan.
As a condition precedent to final approval of any subdivision or land

development intended for residential use, except those of five or less dwelling
units or lots, the developer shall dedicate for public use recreation open space
meeting the design standards in the ordinance of this Chapter, or upon
agreement with the Township, pay a recreation fee.
Recreation open space should meet, at a minimum, the following standards:
A. Minimum Size. 2,185 square feet per dwelling unit or lot.
B. Vehicular Access. Shall be easily and safely accessible from all areas of the
development, have adequate ingress and egress including meeting applicable site
distance and other standard requirements, and have a minimum of 250 feet of
frontage on a public or proposed public street.
C. Location. Shall be centrally located within the development site, on one parcel of
land with no intervening land.
D. Size and Shape. Size and shape shall be suitable for development as a park and no
single side of the land shall amount to more than 35 percent of the perimeter.
E. Maximum Finished Slope and Land Disturbance. The finished grade shall have a
slope of 4 percent or less.
F. Pedestrian Access. Shall be accessible to each dwelling unit in the development via
pedestrian easement or dedicated right-of-way within which sidewalks shall be built
by the developer prior to acceptance by the Township.
G. Utilities and Vegetation. Shall be in reasonable proximity to utilities including water,

sanitary sewer, and electric, and shall have established vegetation thereon.
H. Use Limitations. Shall be free from encumbrances or liens which would prevent,
limit, or restrict its use in any way.
I. Wetlands. Shall not include areas defined as wetlands by either the Army Corps of
Engineers or the PADEP.
J. Floodplains. Shall not include any areas defined as floodplains including floodway
and floodway fringe areas, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
K. Utility Easements. Shall not have more than 15 percent can be encumbered by utility
easements other than those servicing the parcel.
L. Timing of Dedication. Shall be deeded to the Township at the time of recording of

the final plat. If a plat is developed and constructed in phases, the land proposed for
dedication to the public shall be deeded to the Township together with the recording
of the final plat containing the land being dedicated and shall be dedicated and deeded
to the Township not later than the phase when the total cumulative percentage of lots
or dwelling units approved for recording in the phases of the plat reaches 35 percent
of the total lots or dwelling units in all phases of the plat or land development granted
preliminary approval.
M. Conformity with Township Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Shall have all
land proposed for dedication as recreation open space and be suitable for the use
intended and be located and designed in accordance with the recreation plan.
N. Modifications for Sites Less Than Five Acres. If the land to be dedicated to the
Township is less than five (5) acres, the Supervisors may waive any of the above
criteria if such land fits within the Township’s Comprehensive Plan for linear parks
and greenways.
Recreation Fees
To offset recreation fees, the Township should enact a resolution to set park rental fees.
Contents of a resolution are as follows:
A. The Supervisors should establish by resolution or ordinance a recreation fee schedule.
B. When a recreation fee is required, final approval of a final application shall be

conditioned upon the execution of an agreement between the Township and the
applicant, on a form provided by the Township, providing for payment of the
recreation fee at the time of issuance of a building permit for development pursuant to
the final plat as approved, or the applicant shall pay the recreation fees prior to release
of the final plat for recording.
C. The Township shall establish the recreation fees fund. Recreation fees shall be
deposited into the recreation fees fund. The recreation fees fund shall be used solely
for the purpose of providing land and facilities for recreation uses in the Township.
D. Refunds. Upon request of any person who paid any fee under this Section, the
Township shall refund such a fee, plus interest accumulated thereon from the date of
payment, if the Township had failed to utilize the fee paid for the purposes set forth in
the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code within three (3) years from the date
such fee was paid. If the Township does not use the recreation fees to provide land
and facilities for recreation use within three (3) years from the date of the recreation
fees, then, upon receipt of a written request from the payer who paid the recreation
fees, then, upon receipt of a written request from the payer who paid the recreation
fees, the Township shall refund the recreation fees plus interest earned from the date
of payment approved, or the applicant shall pay the recreation fees prior to release of
the final plat for recording.
Park and Recreation Board
The Supervisors should also consider forming a Township Park and Recreation Advisory Board.
The Board would be a seven (7) member board with two (2) representatives from the Elizabeth-
Forward School District. The Board would meet monthly, oversee park development, programs,
assist with grants, etc. The Board would also assist as volunteers to help create programs, light
maintenance, and encouraging park use through creative programs.
The Board should become members of the Pennsylvania Recreation and Park Society which
offers volunteer training and great assistance and guidance.
Grant Funding
Given the cost of park improvements and a limited tax base, acquiring grants will dictate how the
park will develop over the next ten (10) years. Grants are limited, but are also an excellent
funding opportunity to promote community stability and the quality of life in an area. Applying
for federal and state grants to aid in completing the park will be vital to improving Elizabeth
Township’s overall budget for the project and giving the Township the ability to create a
recreation complex that is most desirable to its residents. There are many grants available for
municipalities, like Redbank Township.
The Community Conservation Partnerships Program is the grant funding available through the
PADCNR. The Acquisition and Development Grants are:
“Municipalities are the only eligible applicants. The Department provides grant funding
at a level not to exceed 50 percent of eligible costs except for Small Community
Development types (see below). A Municipality may submit one application per project
type per funding period. Projects include:
Acquisition – grants for the purchase of land for park, recreation and conservation
purposes. Projects may include acquisition of land for new areas, in holdings or
expansion of existing sites.
Park Rehabilitation and Development – grants for the rehabilitation of existing parks,
indoor and outdoor recreation facilities and development of new park and recreation
areas.”
The Department of Community and Economic Development may be an excellent governmental

entity to apply for grants. Two such grant programs advertised within this sector are the
Community Revitalization Program (CRP) and the Local Municipal Resources and Development
Program (LMRDP). Both are grants that are available for municipalities and non-profit
organizations. There are multiple purposes for funding opportunities, one being recreation for
both of them. The amount received via the CRP varies; typical grants via the LMRDP are
between $5,000 and $25,000.
Other Recommendations
Howell Property – Development of a master Site Plan as a natural park is needed to determine
the future development of this approximately 90 acre area of wooded land.
Round Hill Park – Contains 1,100 acres and is not used intensely. The County needs to explore
the potential of joint use facilities, especially the community building near the park office.

Feasibility Study Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Feasibility Study Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Elizabeth Township Feasibility Study Page ii

Township Supervisors/Staff Key-Person Interviews

Mrs. Joanne Beckowitz Emily Albeck

In addition, we would like to thank:

 Mr. Andrew Baechle, Director

 Mr. Mike Piaskowski, Grants Project Management Division

 Ms. Kathy Frankel, Recreation and Parks Supervisor

II. PROJECT GOALS............................................................................................................2

Feasibility for a Recreation Complex.............................................................................. 2

III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .............................................................................................3

Steering Committee .......................................................................................................... 3

Public Surveys and Public Involvement ......................................................................... 3

IV. SITE ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................15

Alternative Site Evaluation Results............................................................................... 16

VI. USAGE FEASIBILITY ...................................................................................................21

Population Analysis ........................................................................................................ 21

Developing a User Profile............................................................................................... 26

National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Standards ................................. 26

Determining Park Facility Needs and Program Demand Analysis............................ 29

Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines .................................. 29

Site Topography and Roadway Impact Analysis......................................................... 32

VII. VISION FOR THE FUTURE .........................................................................................33

VIII. FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERATIONS ................................40

Proposed Annual Park Operation and Maintenance Budget ..................................... 40

II. PROJECT GOALS

III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Public Surveys and Public Involvement

Table 1 – Elizabeth Township Survey Return Results

GRAND TOTAL RECEIVED 1576

Survey Results: Demographics

Figure 1 – Age Distribution of Survey Households

11-14 years old

7% 15-19 years old

20-39 years old

40-59 years old

Figure 2 – Locations of Survey Respondents

Survey Results: Recreation Interests

Figure 3 – Preferred Recreation Facilities

Figure 4 – Adult’s Favorite Activities (Top 10) To determine the most

Organized sports are much

10 The types of activities

Figure 6 – Natural Areas/Sports Fields/Park & Recreation Space: Additional Space

Figure 7 – Preferred Type of Recreational Facility

Figure 8 – Park Usage-Group Size

Small (6 or Less) Large (Greater than 6)

Figure 9 – Frequency of Use

Figure 10 – Preferred Trail Use

next two figures (Figure 10 and

Figure 11 – Preferred Trail Amenities

Figure 12 – Areas of Concern

20 No Improvements/ Any Improvement Need Activities Preserve Nature/ Concern about

Survey Results: Funding Options

Table 2 – Percentage of Respondents’ Disposition for Recreation Funding Types

Figure 13 – Method for Funding Recreation Center

60.0% Strongly Disagree

IV. SITE ANALYSIS

• Boston Riverfront, riverfront recreation area and regional trail head.

• Round Hill Park, at the current soccer field site.

• Round Hill Park, at the former Nike missile site.

• No-Build Alternative, modification of existing facilities to better meet the recreation

Alternative Site Evaluation Results

• Seven Springs Site

• Round Hill Park – Soccer Site

Mr. Andrew Baechle, Director

Mr. Mike Piaskowski, Grants Project Management Division

Ms. Kathy Frankel, Recreation and Parks Supervisor